Haryana

Karnal

310/2013

Parmod Kumar S/o Kanwarpal Singh, Sukhbir Singh S/o Anoop Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank., Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Roshan Lal

17 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                           Complaint No.310 of 2013

                                                               Date of instt.9.07.2013

                                                               Date of decision: 22.07.2015

 

1.Parmod Kumar son of Sh.Kanwarpal Singh 2.Sukhbir Singh son of Shri Anoop Singh, both residents of village Arainpura tehsil Gharaunda district Karnal.

                                                                   ………….Complainant.

 

                                                          Versus

1.Punjab National Bank, through its Branch Manager, at village Gharaunda tehsil Gharaunda district Karnal.

2.Distt.Zonal Manager, of Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office at Sector 12, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                                                   ………..Opposite Parties.

 

 

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                   Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……….Member.

                  

 

 Present        None for the complainant.

                   Sh.Somesh Garg Advocate for the Ops.

ORDER:                    

 

                        The brief facts giving rise to the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,   are that father of the complainants had obtained  loan for raising Atta Chhaki/flour mill from  Opposite party ( in short OP)  No.1 in the year  1997 and deposited original title deed bearing No. 25/1 dated 27.9.1984 in respect of a plot measuring 10 Marlas  for creating mortgage thereof. Apart from that, the  agricultural land measuring 6 kanals one marla situated at village  Panori Disitrict Karnal was also mortgaged as collateral security. The entire loan amount was repaid by way of compromise and OP bank issued a letter in this regard. After payment of the entire loan amount, the complainants requested the OP bank to return the original sale deed   and  get cleared loan  amount from the  relevant revenue record but, neither  “No Dues Certificate” was issued nor original title deed was returned.   After repeated persuations, the OP bank gave no  dues certificate  to the complainants for redemption of the land measuring 6 kanals one Marla, in the year 2010, but the original title deed has not been returned. The officials of the OP No.1  made false excuse for not returning the original title deed. Therefore, the complainant moved applications to the  OP bank on 15.12.2010, 12.4.2013 and 2.5.2013 to get released original title deed, but despite that the   same has not been returned to the complainant. It has also been submitted that the complainants want to raise loan from Corporation Bank, GT Road, Karnal for running one unit at village Arianpura but due to lack of original title deed,  bank has not disbursed loan to them. The complainants  sought directions against the Ops to release the title deed and to pay Rs.3.00 lakhs as compensation,  Rs.50,000/- for  harassment , humiliation, mental pain and agony and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

2.       Upon notice OP no.1 and 2 appeared and filed written statement disputing claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is hopelessly time barred; that the complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of  legal heirs of  Kanwar Pal Singh and that the complainant does not fall under the definition of  Consumer dispute.

 

                   On merits, factum of obtaining loan by Kanwar Pal Singh, the  father of the complainants by depositing title deed in respect of the plot measuring ten marlas and mortgaging  six kanals one marla land, as collateral security, has not been denied.   It has been also admitted that the complainants have repaid the entire loan amount as per compromise. It has been also submitted  that after closure of the loan account, officials of the bank returned the sale deed to the complainant and also issued “No Dues Certificate”  immediately. On the request of the complainant, the Ops again issued letter for redemption of agricultural land to Tehsildar, Gharaunda, as the same was lost by the complainant. It has further been averred that complainants  kept mum for nine years from the date of closure of the loan account and moved an application  in the month of June, 2011 for the first time  for return of the title deed which shows their malafide intention, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

 

3.                In evidence of the complainant, affidavit of complainant Parmod Kumar  Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 have been filed.

 

4.                On the other hand, in the evidence of OPs, affidavit of Sh.K.C.Atwal, Senior Manager Ex.OP1 has been filed.

 

5.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.                The only dispute between the parties is  regarding non return of the original title deed deposited by Kanwar Pal the  father of the complainants, at the time of obtaining loan, even after repayment of the loan amount by the complainants  as per compromise. The complainants have alleged that original title deed has not been returned but the Ops have asserted that original title deed was returned  and “ Do Dues Certificate” was  also issued to the complainants on repayment of loan amount. It is admitted fact that loan amount was adjusted on 13.3.2002.  This fact also stands established from the copy of the certificate issued by the Senior Manager of the OP  bank Ex.C1. As per allegations of the complainant they moved application to OP No.1 in the month of June, 2011 for return of the original title deed. Thus the complainants remained silent for a period of more than nine years since adjustment of the loan amount and did not ask for return of the original title deed. It does not appeal to reason  that a person who has  repaid the entire loan amount would not insist for issuance of the  “ No Dues Certificate” and return of original title deed deposited at the time of obtaining loan.  Remaining silent for such a long period after repayment of the loan amount indicates that either the complainants were negligent or the original title deed and  “ No Dues Certificate”  given to time at the time of adjustment of the loan were lost. Under  these circumstances, it cannot be believed that original title deed was not returned to the complainant at the time of adjustment of loan  amount.

 

7.                 It is also important to point out that loan account was adjusted as per compromise on 13.3.2002. The complainants remained silent upto June, 2011 i.e. for a period of more than nine years. The cause of action accrued to them at the time of adjustment of the loan amount.  A complaint under the Consumer Protection Act could be filed within two years from the date of accrual  of cause of action, but the present complaint has been filed on 9.7.2013 i.e. after a period of more than 11 years of the accrual of the cause of action. Therefore, the complaint is time barred and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

 

8.                As a sequel to foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and consequently, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due

compliance.

 

Announced
dated:22.7.2015                                                                             

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                   (Smt.Shashi  Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

Present         None for the complainant.

                   Sh.Somesh Garg Advocate for the Ops.

 

                   Arguments heard. For orders, the case is adjourned to 22.7.2015.

Announced
dated:21.7.2015                                                                             

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                   (Smt.Shashi  Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

Present         None for the complainant.

                   Sh.Somesh Garg Advocate for the Ops.

 

                   Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:22.7.2015                                                                              

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                   (Smt.Shashi  Sharma)

                             Member.